Feelin

Feelin is a sandbox simulation game set in an open world, where players engage in creative building and environmental interaction from a third-person perspective. Developed by Feelin Games and released in Early Access on Steam, it features direct control and point-and-select interfaces for a player-driven experience focused on exploration and construction.

Feelin: The Ghost in the Machine – A Review of an UnreleasedDream

Introduction: A Review of Absence

To review Feelin is to review a specter. It is a title that exists more in the realm of potential and promise than in the tangible reality of completed craftsmanship. Launched into Steam Early Access on August 23, 2018, by a single developer, Yuuki Tsuji (under the banner Feelin Games), Feelin presented itself with a poetic, grandiose vision: an infinite, shared, open-world sandbox where all player constructions persist in a cloud-saved universe. The official blurb spoke of owning land, collecting items, and collectively building a world. Yet, to engage with the critical and historical record of Feelin is to confront a profound void. The game appears to be a notorious case of abandoned development—a “Early Access” title that never left the station, leaving behind only a skeletal framework, a handful of forum posts, and a silent Steam page. This review, therefore, cannot be a traditional deconstruction of mechanics, narrative, or artistry. Instead, it must be an autopsy of a dream unrealized, an analysis of a game that is perhaps most significant for what it represents: the perils and pitfalls of the solo-developer, open-ended Early Access model.

Development History & Context: The Solo Dream vs. The Oceanic Scope

Feelin was the child of Yuuki Tsuji, a solitary developer operating as Feelin Games. The technological foundation was Unity, a common and accessible engine for indie developers in 2018. The stated vision, as per the Steam “What the developers have to say” section, was clear: “Finally what I want to create is a online multi-player co-building open world sandbox game. Currently, I have developed a basic game world as multi play and all constructions are shared by all players. Step by step, I will provide the version upped world.”

This vision was staggering in its scope, placing Feelin directly in the lineage of ambitious social sandboxes like Minecraft (with its voxel precision, though Feelin claimed 10cm intervals for detail) and the nascent VRChat or Rec Room in terms of user-generated content sharing. However, the context of 2018 is one of massive, well-funded projects. The year’s critical darlings (God of War, Red Dead Redemption 2) and highest-grossing titles (Fortnite, PUBG) were monolithic in scale and resources. Against this backdrop, Feelin was a quintessential “one-person army” project. The technological constraints were not just hardware—the recommended specs (a GTX 1050 Ti) were modest for the era—but human. The gap between a “basic game world” with shared constructions and a “version upped world” with “items variation, character creation, fields, biomes, player emotions, game events, sub missions” is an oceanic chasm. The development history is not one of iterative progress, but of promise and apparent cessation. The last update noted on Steam was over two years prior to the time of writing, and the community forums are a graveyard of pleas (“When update?”, “Is this game still in development?”, “ABANDONED. EASY MONEY FOR DEVS.”). This isn’t a story of a niche cult hit; it’s a textbook example of an Early Access project that failed to secure the momentum, resources, or perhaps even the capability to approach its stated goals.

Narrative & Thematic Deep Dive: The Narrative of the Build

Feelin’s “narrative” is not one of scripted plot, characters, or dialogue. It is a meta-narrative, explicitly laid out in its marketing: Become a Feelin resident, own land, collect items, build and develop this world together. The theme is pure, unadulterated creation and shared ownership. The “plot” is the emergent story of a community building a civilization from scratch. The “characters” are the avatars of the players themselves. The “dialogue” is the silent, architectural language of structures placed, roads laid, and resources gathered.

The thematic depth lies in its socio-legal simulation of land ownership. The Steam description introduces intriguing economic mechanics: “Land in the center of the world, where there is more traffic, will increase in value in the future. The value of the land will also depend on the value of the surrounding area.” This suggests an ambition not just for a sandbox, but for a simulated economy and emergent social hierarchy. The thematic aspiration is to create a persistent, player-driven world where value is collectively determined—a digital frontier with property rights. However, without a single patch to expand these systems, these themes remain pure hypothesis, a philosophical pitch deck for a world that never materialized. The only narrative that actually unfolded was the tragic arc of developer-player trust.

Gameplay Mechanics & Systems: The Skeleton in the Closet

Based on the fragmented sources—primarily the Steam store page, a few forum posts, and Yuuki Tsuji’s own sparse Steam guides—we can only piece together a skeletal framework of Feelin‘s intended gameplay loops:

• Core Loop: The described loop is: Collect Resources → Build on Owned Land → Explore Others’ Creations. Resources (wood, stone, glass windows, awnings, “drinks,” etc.) are gathered from “open land parcels,” creating a clear distinction between commons and private property. Building is touted as having exceptional freedom (“10-cm intervals” vs. 1-meter voxels), with a capacity of up to 3,000 items per land plot.
• Land System: This is presented as the central mechanic. Land is segmented into parcels with coordinates (e.g., “/0,0 ~ /+-10,+-10”). Types include: Open (for purchase), Owned, For Sale, Public, and Reserved (for events). The system implies a map-based, persistent world where location confers economic value (central vs. peripheral).
• Progression & Customization: “Make your own avatar” is mentioned. “Land coins” are the currency for purchasing land. Progression seems tied to wealth (land coins) and creative output (building complexity/visibility).
• UI & Control: The control scheme, from a user-made guide, was standard for a 3rd-person builder: WASD movement, mouse for view/object selection, keys for sitting/lying down, double-click for picking up/releasing objects.
• Innovation vs. Flaw: The claimed innovation was hyper-precise building in a multiplayer, shared-world context. The potential flaw was catastrophic: total lack of content and systemic depth. From the earliest player reports (June 2018), users were already noting the severe feature-light state. A forum post from September 2018 states, “ABANDONED. EASY MONEY FOR DEVS.” Another from January 2021: “It’s a shame, this game looked like it could have been really nice. Really liked the art style but no updates for about 6 months and very feature light currently.” The systems described on the store page were the entire systems; there were no crafting recipes beyond explicit item lists, no threats, no goals beyond building, and crucially, no evidence of a functioning, populated multiplayer world beyond the initial infrastructure. The most damning proof of systemic failure is the SteamDB data showing no updates since late 2019/early 2020 and the developer’s own last public post on the Steam forum in November 2021 being a simple, non-informative “Feelin is Back!!”

World-Building, Art & Sound: Aesthetic Promise in a Void

The available screenshots and videos (primarily posted by the developer, Yuuki@Feelin, on Steam) reveal a simple, clean, low-poly 3D aesthetic. It evokes a LEGO-like or Minecraft-inspired visual language—bright, uncomplicated shapes, rolling green hills, quaint wooden structures. The art style is not ugly, but it is utterly generic and, more importantly, static. There is no evidence of dynamic lighting, weather, day/night cycles, or biomes beyond the basic green terrain shown. The world, as presented, is a featureless, placid void waiting to be filled.

The sound design is a complete mystery. No soundtracks, ambient effects, or UI sounds are documented in the sources. The experience, from all available evidence, was one of visual silence, broken only by the player’s own actions.

The greatest contribution of the art and sound (or lack thereof) to the overall experience is one of profound emptiness and melancholy. The bright, simple graphics became a mockery of the vast, complex world promised. The silent landscape amplified the feeling of abandonment. It was the aesthetic of a template, not a living world. The atmosphere was not one of serene creation, but of eerie, unmet potential—a digital parkland with no people, a theme park built but never opened.

Reception & Legacy: From Curiosity to Cautionary Tale

Critical Reception: There are no critic reviews aggregated on MobyGames. Steam shows “Mixed” user reviews (42% positive from 19 reviews), a tiny sample size that speaks more to curiosity and Early Access hopefuls than to a broad reception. The lack of any professional coverage is itself a statement.

Commercial & Community Reception: The commercial impact was negligible. It was an obscure Early Access title at a low price point ($6.99). The community reception, as documented in the Steam forums, is a clear trajectory: initial interest and question-asking (June 2019: “Start area”), to troubleshooting (“I can’t launch the game,” “Settings for PCs without a powerful GPU”), to frustration (“Update Missing,” “When update”), and finally to outright declarations of abandonment and warnings (“ABANDONED. EASY MONEY FOR DEVS.” from May 2021). The most telling activity is the sheer number of threads from a single user, “Ryu,” posting screenshots of their own constructions in late 2018—the last gasps of a vibrant user base that quickly evaporated.

Legacy & Influence: Feelin has no direct influence on subsequent games or the industry. It did not popularize a mechanic, inspire a clone, or contribute to a genre’s evolution. Its legacy is purely didactic. It stands as a stark, modern example of:
1. The dangers of over-scoping in a solo or tiny-team Early Access project.
2. The critical importance of maintaining transparent, consistent, and honest communication with a community—the complete silence from the developer after early promises is a masterclass in how not to manage player expectations.
3. The fine line between a “prototype” and a “product” in Early Access. Feelin never evolved meaningfully beyond a proof-of-concept for a shared-building world.
4. The fickle nature of the Early Access market, where consumer goodwill is a perishable resource.

In the grand timeline of 2018—a year dominated by God of War, Spider-Man, and the Fortnite juggernaut—Feelin is a ghost footnote. It represents the vast majority of Early Access titles that do not become success stories; the quiet casualties in the gold rush of player-funded development.

Conclusion: The Unbuilt Monument

Feelin is not a bad game. It is not a flawed game. It is, in the most literal sense, an unfinished game. To review it is to review a blueprint, a Kickstarter video, a developer’s idle dream. The thesis, then, is this: Feelin’s historical significance lies not in its playable content—which is almost nonexistent—but in its embodiment of the Early Access paradox. It was sold as a “game in development,” but its development appears to have ceased while still in the most rudimentary phase. It promised a shared world but delivered only a shared disappointment.

Its place in video game history is as a cautionary artifact. It is the digital equivalent of a half-built monument, its cornerstone laid with poetic ambition but left to crumble in the rain. For every Minecraft, Hades, or Valheim that justifies the Early Access model, there are dozens like Feelin that serve as reminders of the immense gulf between a compelling concept and a completed, sustainable interactive experience. To “feel” Feelin is to feel the phantom limb of a world that could have been—a persistent, player-built reality—but was never given the chance to exist. It is a lesson in the paramount importance of execution over inspiration, and a somber note on the trust between creator and community that, once broken, is impossible to rebuild.

Final Verdict: 1/10 (As a playable product) | As a historical case study: Incalculable.